There's no reason to add another meaningless grade to an already muddled structure in CAP.

Bringing aircrew up from the enlisted ranks may open up a new potential group to draw from, but it doesn't magically create those people out of thin air, and as indicated making them Warrants just opens other potential issues, though I recall reading one article that indicated there might be legal issues with whether or non non-comms can shoot to kill in an aircraft, which was one of the reasons to reconsider warrants.

It's not likely to fix the "pilot crisis", which has as much to do with the economy, career potential, and social attitudes about the military, as it does with what someone has ion their shoulder.

The Navy has tried, over the years, to use similar programs for filling the pilot ranks - NAP, AOCS, and LDO Aviator among others - with limited success. One of the limiting reasons was a status bias, similar to that between Academy and ROTC/OCS graduates. I have seen this bias to be even greater in the AF than the Navy, so the WO idea may be doomed from the outset. YMMV.

The fix is to just let pilots fly. If they don't want to do the other stuff...then let them just stay in rank.

In 1980 I went to USAF Navigator school. I was later caught in a "RIF" and wound up in the Army. I would have been more than willing to take a reduction to W-2, and it most likely would have been offered to me - if the grade existed.

If the USAF does this the CAP response would probably be to open the existing FO grades to all senior members, and I would be perfectly happy to be one.

You'd be surprised at where peoples heads are these days. Just five years ago, I was at the bar with a bunch of senior pilots [from a joint aircraft program] who were seriously debating combining the brown shoe Naval Aviation and USAF pilot communities and doing away with separate air services. These were both Air Force and Navy officers.

I moved a couple of stools down, switched away from what they were drinking, and started eyeing the nearest exit...

Not a Pilot and not a Warrant Officer, but the vast majority of both, in Army, are in Army Aviation.

The way I understand it that WO have their own Professional Military Education System and they pretty much can keep the same job from WO-1 to CWO-4 without worrying about the up-or-out concept that Commissioned Officers deal with.

CWO-5 slots are more like Command Sergeant Major Billets, they are advisors to Commanders on WO issues.

If you want to do nothing but fly for 20 years, Army Aviation Warrant Officer seems the way to go.

Agreed, that's my impression based on working with aircrew from all the services; USAF/USN/USMC commissioned pilots are expected to at some point go complete a dept. head tour and then "grow up" (ugh, their sarcastic phrase not mine).

One of my sisters married a 2LT straight out of Ft. Wolters flight school and the other a WO after his 3rd 'Nam tour (got out as a CW4 after Iran) and he did nothing but fly day in and day out with very little non operational work. I work on one project with CW4 and -5s now, and former warrant DAC pilots from the Regiment. They're the (THE) high time technical community experts we use for avionics systems, weapons and tactics, and cockpit design evals (some are even test pilot school grads, and one has several degrees - it isn't like warrants are uneducated boors). We had one O-3 in the sims last week and they were very kind and indulgent of the young man's inputs.

There was a very interesting CSPAN session back in January or so regarding USAF and Army 3 stars giving testimony before the SASC regarding UAV pilot training (with very near peer equipment - Predators and GE's - the Army has had no problems producing pilots, while USAF had a long list of reasons why not). I think I posted a link here on CT...

I think the WO grades would be good for mission related personnel who are only interested in ES. This would allow for the upgrade of educational requirements for officer grades. College degree is now required for national commander and vice commander. This will now be moving down to other positions. Unlike FO grades, WO grades would not be only for 18 to 20 year olds. If we had a full enlisted grade program it may be different. My opinion.

I think the WO grades would be good for mission related personnel who are only interested in ES. This would allow for the upgrade of educational requirements for officer grades. College degree is now required for national commander and vice commander. This will now be moving down to other positions. Unlike FO grades, WO grades would not be only for 18 to 20 year olds. If we had a full enlisted grade program it may be different. My opinion.

Agreed. I am moving towards ridding the seniors of the USAF uniforms and grades. I get the reasons on both sides, but very much lean towards corporate uniforms these days.

I think the WO grades would be good for mission related personnel who are only interested in ES. This would allow for the upgrade of educational requirements for officer grades. College degree is now required for national commander and vice commander. This will now be moving down to other positions. Unlike FO grades, WO grades would not be only for 18 to 20 year olds. If we had a full enlisted grade program it may be different. My opinion.

Agreed. I am moving towards ridding the seniors of the USAF uniforms and grades. I get the reasons on both sides, but very much lean towards corporate uniforms these days.

As you may, or may not, have noticed, a couple of posts have disappeared. The "offenders" know who they are. Let's try a little harder to keep it clean and on topic. And keep the spoons pit away. Got it?

Why dump the AF style uniforms for Senior Members? We ARE an Auxiliary of a Branch of Service. The Corporates are for folks who cannot or do not want to adhere to the Dress and Appearance for the AF-style uniforms (not judging, just fact).

Why dump the AF style uniforms for Senior Members? We ARE an Auxiliary of a Branch of Service. The Corporates are for folks who cannot or do not want to adhere to the Dress and Appearance for the AF-style uniforms (not judging, just fact).

Many SM cannot and do not want to adhere to the Dress and Appearance for the AF-style uniforms and still wear them anyway. Just fact

Why dump the AF style uniforms for Senior Members? We ARE an Auxiliary of a Branch of Service. The Corporates are for folks who cannot or do not want to adhere to the Dress and Appearance for the AF-style uniforms (not judging, just fact).

Many SM cannot and do not want to adhere to the Dress and Appearance for the AF-style uniforms and still wear them anyway. Just fact

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which means CC's need to be taking corrective action and not let it slide..

Why dump the AF style uniforms for Senior Members? We ARE an Auxiliary of a Branch of Service. The Corporates are for folks who cannot or do not want to adhere to the Dress and Appearance for the AF-style uniforms (not judging, just fact).

Many SM cannot and do not want to adhere to the Dress and Appearance for the AF-style uniforms and still wear them anyway. Just fact

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which means CC's need to be taking corrective action and not let it slide..

Happens in my unit, and my Wg/CC is pushing compliance. At my squadron we have started to conduct weigh-ins biannually. I have the blessing of the Sq/CC to call out other SMs on uniform discrepancies including grooming. One of the huge problems is the lack of basic instruction for new members, but once you've been informed then there is no excuse for looking like 10 pounds of bovine excrement in a 5 pound bag, or having stupid Elvis chops in the AF style uniform. To those of you in corporates, get down with your bad selves. I saw a dude with an epic handlebar mustache in BBDUs recently. Mad props.

So far we've yet to have to send someone home, but it has been put out that if you shouldn't be wearing the AF style uniform due to weight or grooming issues, or flagrantly disregard uniform standards, you will fix yourself or you will leave until you have. Keep breaking the rules, further disciplinary action will be taken, up to termination if need be.

I look at it as a matter of integrity. If I can't trust you to wear the proper uniform, then I can't trust you to tell me your true weight for balance on an AC, etc. I am not concerned with people's feelings. If you can't put on your big boy/girl pants and play by big boy/girl rules then you don't belong flying SAR missions, on a ground team, running a comm set, driving a van loaded with members or especially training future leaders of America. This stuff is Barney-style easy once you learn it.

All that being said, there's a time and place. I can understand someone not having a clean shave when they've been roused out of bed at zero dark to go hunt an ELT, mission first, do your thing and shave if you can. Now, if you show up to a regular meeting in ABUs with two days growth on your face, you're a turd who I don't want around my cadets. Here's a cheap bic razor. Go fix yourself. No? Okay, bye Felicia. Try again next week.

I think the WO grades would be good for mission related personnel who are only interested in ES. This would allow for the upgrade of educational requirements for officer grades. College degree is now required for national commander and vice commander. This will now be moving down to other positions. Unlike FO grades, WO grades would not be only for 18 to 20 year olds. If we had a full enlisted grade program it may be different. My opinion.

You could easily include those who are not interested in command, instead of just ES. Several years ago, there was a pretty well developed idea for a new Flight/Warrant Officer program in CAP floating around CAPTalk.

Why dump the AF style uniforms for Senior Members? We ARE an Auxiliary of a Branch of Service. The Corporates are for folks who cannot or do not want to adhere to the Dress and Appearance for the AF-style uniforms (not judging, just fact).

Many SM cannot and do not want to adhere to the Dress and Appearance for the AF-style uniforms and still wear them anyway. Just fact

Nobody doubts that ... we see it all the time. However, does that mean you take the uniform away from those who do follow the guidelines, or do you deal with those who don't in a way that they don't break the rules any more?

The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind here.

The problem with aviator retention is not in the grade structure, titles, uniforms, etc. As long as commercial airlines, top end charter operators, private businesses are able to recruit high quality pre-trained aviators from the military nothing will change. In the past the military has tried bonus payments to keep aviators, they have tried longer lock ins, and a few other programs that at best offer only short term solutions to a long term problem.Although the Air Force does not as a matter of course go out and play in the mud as Army and Marine aviators, nor do they have to contend with months long ship deployments like the Navy, they are still subjected to frequent PCS Moves, TDY's, and deployments to hostile fire areas. So where is the answer? I don't know.

They focus on one thing -- perfect track for those who "just want to _____________" (fly, work with cadets, do ES and so forth)

It addresses the current concern that inexperienced members are having more responsibility thrust on them than they are prepared to undertake.

Professional development for WOs, beyond Level 2, should focus almost exclusively on their specialty track.

Likewise, if it becomes necessary or desirable for a warrant officer to switch to the command/generalist track, there needs to be an expectation that missing PD would be made up, quickly.

Or....and I'm just tossing this out there, you could always remain as a SMWOG, and not even bother participating in the PD program. Want to do ES or CP or AE exclusively and not deal with other stuff? Just don't....

One of the biggest reasons for the current military pilot shortage is the fact that we have been "at war" for about 17 years now.Depending on the airframe you fly, it's back to back to back deployments. Not exactly good for morale.

Or....and I'm just tossing this out there, you could always remain as a SMWOG, and not even bother participating in the PD program. Want to do ES or CP or AE exclusively and not deal with other stuff? Just don't....

There is a certain minimum of basic, essential information a member needs to be an effective CAP member...which I would say tops out at Level 2 for those not looking to command squadrons or serve in higher headquarters.

Just my opinion.

Also, I'm not fond of the SMWOG as a long term rank for anyone, makes them seem, at least at first look, uninvolved in the program.

Or....and I'm just tossing this out there, you could always remain as a SMWOG, and not even bother participating in the PD program. Want to do ES or CP or AE exclusively and not deal with other stuff? Just don't....

CAP is vastly different from active duty military because active duty officers are either promoted or separated. Staying a captain (for example) indefinitely is not an option. Since promotion depends on increasing leadership responsibility, there is an argument for a path for technical specialists who continually improve their technical expertise without commanding larger and larger groups.

In CAP, you can remain a captain indefinitely, so there is no need to create a separate path for those who want to concentrate on increasing technical skills rather than command.

Or....and I'm just tossing this out there, you could always remain as a SMWOG, and not even bother participating in the PD program. Want to do ES or CP or AE exclusively and not deal with other stuff? Just don't....

CAP is vastly different from active duty military because active duty officers are either promoted or separated. Staying a captain (for example) indefinitely is not an option. Since promotion depends on increasing leadership responsibility, there is an argument for a path for technical specialists who continually improve their technical expertise without commanding larger and larger groups.

In CAP, you can remain a captain indefinitely, so there is no need to create a separate path for those who want to concentrate on increasing technical skills rather than command.

Yeah. That's the point. Don't want to do it? Just don't do it. One of the best squadron level CP guys I ever knew was a SMWOG for about 15 years. Never did PD, just did a fantastic job developing leaders. The other stuff just wasn't important to him.

Or....and I'm just tossing this out there, you could always remain as a SMWOG, and not even bother participating in the PD program. Want to do ES or CP or AE exclusively and not deal with other stuff? Just don't....

CAP is vastly different from active duty military because active duty officers are either promoted or separated. Staying a captain (for example) indefinitely is not an option. Since promotion depends on increasing leadership responsibility, there is an argument for a path for technical specialists who continually improve their technical expertise without commanding larger and larger groups.

In CAP, you can remain a captain indefinitely, so there is no need to create a separate path for those who want to concentrate on increasing technical skills rather than command.

I agree with you but the perception from outside is that if they see someone with Lt Col ranks, for example, that they have a certain level of knowledge and experience. As you have correctly stated, knowledge/experience/ability are not tied to CAP rank. This can create problems (or at least a negative view of CAP) when dealing with outside agencies.

Or....and I'm just tossing this out there, you could always remain as a SMWOG, and not even bother participating in the PD program. Want to do ES or CP or AE exclusively and not deal with other stuff? Just don't....

CAP is vastly different from active duty military because active duty officers are either promoted or separated. Staying a captain (for example) indefinitely is not an option. Since promotion depends on increasing leadership responsibility, there is an argument for a path for technical specialists who continually improve their technical expertise without commanding larger and larger groups.

In CAP, you can remain a captain indefinitely, so there is no need to create a separate path for those who want to concentrate on increasing technical skills rather than command.

I agree with you but the perception from outside is that if they see someone with Lt Col ranks, for example, that they have a certain level of knowledge and experience. As you have correctly stated, knowledge/experience/ability are not tied to CAP rank. This can create problems (or at least a negative view of CAP) when dealing with outside agencies.

I've done a boatload of high profile/high visibility missions. Never had that issue. When Second Lieutenant Noneck was introduced in the EOC as the CAP IC, that was it. It didn't matter if we were dealing with the State Police or the NG or whatever.

EDIT: And this goes back to the days when beards in BDUs wore no rank. It doesn't matter to the pros who is wearing what on their collar. CAP isn't alone in this. I worked for a federal agency that had a DR responsibility. During one of our missions, we had a really low ranking guy as the OIC. Why? He had the experience, training, and was qualified.

Or....and I'm just tossing this out there, you could always remain as a SMWOG, and not even bother participating in the PD program. Want to do ES or CP or AE exclusively and not deal with other stuff? Just don't....

CAP is vastly different from active duty military because active duty officers are either promoted or separated. Staying a captain (for example) indefinitely is not an option. Since promotion depends on increasing leadership responsibility, there is an argument for a path for technical specialists who continually improve their technical expertise without commanding larger and larger groups.

In CAP, you can remain a captain indefinitely, so there is no need to create a separate path for those who want to concentrate on increasing technical skills rather than command.

I agree with you but the perception from outside is that if they see someone with Lt Col ranks, for example, that they have a certain level of knowledge and experience. As you have correctly stated, knowledge/experience/ability are not tied to CAP rank. This can create problems (or at least a negative view of CAP) when dealing with outside agencies.

I've done a boatload of high profile/high visibility missions. Never had that issue. When Second Lieutenant Noneck was introduced in the EOC as the CAP IC, that was it. It didn't matter if we were dealing with the State Police or the NG or whatever.

EDIT: And this goes back to the days when beards in BDUs wore no rank. It doesn't matter to the pros who is wearing what on their collar. CAP isn't alone in this. I worked for a federal agency that had a DR responsibility. During one of our missions, we had a really low ranking guy as the OIC. Why? He had the experience, training, and was qualified.

I was mainly talking about the CAP members with high rank and low experience/knowledge. I also said that it "can" create a problem, not that it "will." I have seen rank not make a difference at all to outside agencies and I have seen outside agencies really look down their noses at CAP because the CAP Lt Col/Maj had next to no clue what they are doing. A person with high rank in any organization is expected to know what they are doing (from the outside looking in).

We can debate this all day but until you can say that rank has zero influence on how CAP is viewed by the outside then what I said is still true.

We can debate this all day but until you can say that rank has zero influence on how CAP is viewed by the outside then what I said is still true.

Grade has zero influence on how CAP is viewed by the outside. It is, at most, a blip when people are introduced, assuming the outsider has a clue about what grade is supposed to mean.

From that point forward, it's all about performance an attitude.

I'm glad you can make such an absolute statement. I have seen different.

I won't argue you haven't, I've had experience to work with plenty of yahoo'sin all manner of agencies and orgs, in a CAP context and otherwise, but that just means that the situation wasn't characterized properly from the start.

Any agency that cares about a CAP member's grade for more then a 1-step "hm"probably doesn't understand CAP well enough to work with.